Saturday, December 15, 2012

Fucking Assholes

So, yes, I've been busy lately (duh). I won't bore you terribly with the details: traveling to Canada and back, sickness, traveling to D.C. (the "other Washington") and back, "single parent duty," working the job-type-job, Seahawks, beagles, etc. In all honesty, I went into work this morning thinking I'd write up a list of 10 or 20 space opera themed post topics for the next couple weeks, probably beginning with a book I picked up at The Newseum in our nation's capital, Darth Vader and Son. But I never quite got around to it. Mainly 'cause some fucking asshole decided to kill close to 30 fellow humans in Connecticut today, including a score of kindergartners.

2012 has been a "banner year" for this kind of bullshit, and frankly I'm sick of it. Back in April a young woman (age 21) who'd just moved to Seattle for culinary school was hit by a stray bullet in downtown Seattle and killed instantly. In May, a 43 year old software developer was killed by a random bullet while driving his family around town...a random bullet meant for someone else. Later that same month, a man from Ellensburg shot (and killed) four people in a Seattle cafe, before shooting (and killing) a random woman near Town Hall and taking her SUV. He later took his own life when police found and cornered him.

The shooting spree at the Batman movie over the summer actually prompted my wife to suggest that we not expose our child to "violent" superhero characters; as if anything about Batman would inspire a person to commit random acts of murder. A professional football player making piles of cash put nine bullets in the young mother of his own child before putting a bullet in his own head a couple weeks ago. Then, of course, there was the shooting last week in an Oregon shopping mall that claimed the lives of three people and injuring another. As with the football player, the cafe shooter in May, and the asshole from today, one of the lives claimed was his own.

And today...words cannot express how awful this tragedy is. I have nightmare thoughts sometimes about what it would be like to outlive my child...for anything to happen to him, sweet innocent that he is. And tonight, there are the parents of 20 young children who are going through their own personal hell because of something so horrific, I never even imagined it as a possibility. I mean, what kind of fucking asshole does that?

And yet he's dead. The killer is dead. All those Republicans out there who support capital punishment (i.e. the"death penalty") should be happy that justice was "self-served," right? Hell, the guy saved the tax payers a ton of money on trials and prosecution and prison housing and mental institutions, etc. I mean, that gives all those grieving family members the closure they need right?

Bullshit.

Same with the asshole that offed himself in Seattle. Or the asshole that played for the Chiefs. Or the asshole that offed himself in the mall in Oregon. The asshole from the Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre has been trying to off himself in jail, but probably won't manage to do so before the state does it for him (Colorado continues to carry the death penalty and performed it's last state execution in 1997...I'm guessing the asshole that killed 12 people who just wanted to watch a popcorn action flick...including a six-year old child...will get the lethal injection, too). They're all reaping their "justice" and the grieving families of the victims will continue to grieve in sorrow. Because they are still suffering from the loss of their loved ones and have no good answers to their main question: "Why?"

Why has this happened? Why has it happened to us? Why has it happened to our loved ones? What is the thing we did...in this life or a past one...to deserve this horror, this tragedy? Why was this murderer such an asshole? Why does our "great society" continue to produce these assholes? Why are they able to do what they do?

And of course, when these questions cannot be answered the next ones asked are "What could we have done to prevent this?" "What could we have done to protect ourselves?" "What can we do in the future to ensure this never, ever happens again?"

Get rid of the guns.

I hate guns. I fucking loathe guns. I, quite literally, cannot stand the touch or feel of guns...when I've held handguns before (a .45; a Glock), I dropped 'em like a live grenade. Like a poisonous snake. Like something violently designed to do harm...tokill...which is exactly what guns are designed to do. They are not designed to be a "neutral tool." They are not manufactured to open stubborn locks or drill holes in a wall for your cable wire. They are created with the purpose of ending life. And they are very, very good at it. Our centuries of technological development have seen vast improvements in this area.

Now, I too have heard that old chestnut about how "guns don't kill people, people kill people," and that's certainly true for the most part...usually, a gun only kills a human when it is pointed at someone and the trigger is pulled by another human. The common argument I hear is that a person with a "will to kill" will find a way to do it, even if he lacks access to a firearm.

And to that I say this: If the asshole in Connecticut had not had access to automatic weapons and large capacity firearms that were purchased legally...if he had instead, say, been forced to use a hunting knife or a ball-peen hammer to do his dirty work...how many people do you think he would have actually managed to kill before he was stopped? How many of the six adults at the elementary school would he have bludgeoned to death before being dragged down and pummeled unconscious? How many children would he have been able to chase down and effectively stab to death before someone clocked him or the police showed up?

The thing that allowed this asshole to inflict the death and suffering on such a horrific scale was his access to guns. That's it...we don't know how many bullets were fired, how many magazines were expended, how many misses were chalked up before his bullets found their victims. But the ability to shoot and shoot and shoot with deadly speed and range and traumatic impact is what allows an asshole to go from "disgruntled crazy guy" to a mass slayer of innocence. It's what turned simple murder into massacre.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So carry a goddamned sword.

I'm serious; I'm sick of it. The idea that prohibiting the citizenry from owning firearms is going to somehow keep a reign on our country becoming a tyranny or military dictatorship is just loony-tunes. If the U.S. military ever decides to stage a coup and take over, we as a people are royally screwed, regardless of whether or not Joe Citizen has an assault rifle in his gun locker. Back in the 18th century, the British soldiers and the American colonists were armed with the same gear: muskets, sabers, cannon. Have you seen what our military is packing these days? Smart bombs and drones fighters, RPGs and mortars, armored fighting vehicles and stealth bombers and .50 caliber machine guns and nuclear attack subs. Having an assault rifle or hand gun in your possession isn't going to allow you to wage revolution, should all hell break loose. Didn't you folks see the armed "insurrection" in Iraq? You know, back when we invaded their country? Their militia (or freedom fighters or guerillas or whatever you want to call them) didn't stand a chance...we just bombed cities flat to quell resistance. And the same would happen here if there was a citizen uprising in the face of martial law backed up by our U.S. war machine.

The 2nd Amendment is something the NRA hides behind because they don't want anyone telling 'em what they can and can't do. And I can understand that...I don't like being told what to do either. If I'm a smoker, how dare my state pass a law that prohibits smoking inside any public building...what if I own the building and want it to be a smoking establishment? How dare the government tell me what I can and can't do with my own property and my own business? What the heck gives them the right to say I have to stand 25 feet away from a bus shelter (in the rain) to light up a smoke?

I'll tell you what gives them the right: the invested authority of the government by the people to protect its own citizens. Smoking causes great harm. If you want to smoke cigarettes (and slowly kill yourself in the process) that's your business, but you'll not be allowed to inflict cancer on others...even inadvertently...with your second hand smoke. Even if you're always careful to blow your smoke the opposite direction. Your "personal rights" are being "infringed" so that others' rights (to life, in this case) isn't being infringed.

You may have the right to "pursue happiness" but not if exercising that right means stealing someone else's car stereo to buy your crank.

[jeez...forgot about that 16 year old kid shot dead by the "citizen watch" asshole in Florida]

Sure, that's going to seem unfair to folks who are well-adjusted, trained in the use of firearms, and capable of keeping their guns under lock-and-key when not on the target range. But it's for the greater good, people. I can drive my car just fine after drinking enough to put me over the "legal limit," but that law (and limit) exists for very good reason. This whole "right to the gun" thing IS the main issue here. It is the presence, and prevalence, of guns in our society that makes it one where "death by gun" has the highest rate of any first world country.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Apparently law enforcement doesn't count? Look, at this point, I'm willing to have that line be the case...especially if it makes it more difficult for the assholes of the world (these "quiet, shy" types who have no problems passing their screenings and then go batshit crazy) to acquire the means of inflicting such terrible, terrible tragedy. These perpetrators of massacre aren't knocking over convenience stores and robbing banks...they are simply going into public places and pulling the trigger as fast as they can.

This is awful, awful shit...truly, truly terrible and my heart is bleeding for the families and friends of ALL these gun victims that continue to accrue. You may think it strange that a guy who plays and writes violent role-playing games (especially ones that involve firearms) would be so "anti-gun," but I have long held the opinion and stance that the ONLY place an ordinary person should be able to "play with guns" should be in fiction: books, movies, video games, RPGs. I've always enjoyed violent fiction, and it hasn't turned me into any type of serial killer. These fucking assholes that are killing people are profoundly disturbed individuals looking for an outlet of violence (perhaps they don't have enough fiction in their lives) and would be doing so regardless of exposure to violent media images.

The best thing we can do is take the guns out of hands...limit the harm they can perpetrate.

Tonight, my prayers are with the families of today's victims. I really do wish I could offer more to them. Hopefully, they will find the strength in their hearts to persevere through this time of trial. For them, their "end of days" must truly feel like it's upon them. I hope sane heads in our government will see this issue and problem for what it is and work to ensure a tragedy like this can never again occur.

54 comments:

A friend posted the following statistic from data that he'd found online:Population of UK: 70 millionPopulation of USA: 300 millionNumber of firearm related deaths in the UK 2010: 53 (1 in >1,000,000)Number of firearm related deaths in the USA 2010: 31,513 (1 in 10,000)You're 100x more likely to die from firearms in the US than in the UK.And yes, we have relatively strict gun laws. Funny that.

Thank you for this post. I still can't fathom the evil of killing kindergartners.

At minimum, we should regulate guns as closely as we regulate cars: you should need to register your ownership of firearms, and you should need to maintain a gun license as a prerequisite for firearm registration. Earning and maintaining a gun license should require passing periodic mental health tests and periodic courses and tests on gun safety and appropriate use of firearms.

You have taken my thoughts and said them more eloquently than I could have. Thank you.My wife and I were discussing this shooting, and she heard on the radio that the parents of this school were waiting outside as the children were being led to safety by the police. She said to me, with tears in her eyes, can you imagine standing outside, waiting, hoping, and praying, to see your child come out of that school, and then not seeing him or her. My heart goes out to all of those parents. We cannot even begin to imagine the devastation that this single act of madness has wrought.

Three times in my life I have used threat of firearm use to protect my home, family, or self.One time a total asshole had my brother in his arms with a knife to my brother, another time in the middle of the night someone was trying to kick my apartment door in to break down and they didn't stop until I made it very clear i was armed (they were not deterred by my presence)and on the third occasion a car full of hooligans thoought they could pile out an attack me because i dared not like being cutoff (in view of a police station. In none of those incidents was anyone harmed yet I can't with confidence say that would have been the result with the assured absence of the firearms. Not one of those incidents could have been stopped in time by reason or fisticuffs.

At least half of all firearms deaths in this country are suicides. I do daresay mass murder is clearly perpetrated by the mentally ill. We are dealing with a mental health problem, one that doesn't cause sane and responsible gun owners to harm anyone.

We have to know why people don't care enough about their neighbors, community, families, or selves to commit such heinous acts.

Removing the ability of law abiding citizens to protect themselves in rare circumstances is not a solution. Responsible licensing similar to auto licensing may serve to weed out some of the loons. Being responsible and sane is the way to go not to render everyone without protection when not standing next to an attentive police officer.

I agree with both JB and JDJarvis. There's no reason why we need military-grade weapons and body armor in the hands of citizens. If our government becomes a tyranny, we are definitely not going to be able to beat their military might. And while we're working on the gun control issue, let's do as JD said and get to work on the mentality, the sickness in our society that breeds this bullshit glorification of guns and their power. And while we're at it, let's recognize how alienated we are from each other and work to correct that. Gun violence is a symptom of a darkness in our culture.

The type of weapons available to the Colorado shooter have nothing to do with what JDJarvis is talking about. They are designed to quickly and efficiently end human life in mass quantities.

Handguns are not tools for anything other than threatening or hurting humans. They aren't effective for anything else. If their possession was licensed and restricted I could understand allowing them to be owned.

But the quantity and quality of guns available is really ridiculous. This guy wasn't even the owner. He killed a family member and took her weapons.

Last week in China a man stabbed 22 school children with a knife. The article did not say how many were killed.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2248054/China-stabbing-22-children-elderly-woman-stabbed-outside-primary-school-Chinese-knifeman.html

Gun regulation, absolute must. Gun banning, forget it. Where is the outrage over abortion deaths, the number one leading cause of death to humanity in the USA? What about motor vehicle accidents? As to Tyranny, 300 million armed people are a lot harder to control then 300 million unarmed serfs. I did not say uncontrollable, but much more difficult. As many of us who are politically aware see the tide of tyranny rising through the ever increasing surveillance state, executive orders, little clauses stuck in bills like the NDAA that makes snatch and grab of any US citizen essentially legal without a trial or evidence, maybe we shouldn't be so trusting of big brother who always is promising things but what is promised always comes at the cost of more and more freedoms lost. It was a horrible thing what happened, the loss of 26? innocent lives needlessly. And it is a time for everyone to evaluate their positions, and to ask questions. I'm for gun regulations, but disarming America might not give you the safe utopia you desire.

you wanna kill the "gun culture"?shove it to those liberal millionaires in hollywood. the NRA protects me by giving me my right to protect myself and my family,but schwarzenegger, matt damon, etc... and hollywood.. get the guns out of movies and gangsta rap. i got a 45 acp and 380 to protect my family from the liberal bullshit given to the country. i'm native american... do i blame the white man from the 1800's from MURDERING my kin? no.. because they aren't alive anymore. do i blame the NRA for gun violence? no! blame the liberals in hollywood for making it mainstream. blame the "gun free" zones that are controlled by liberals for failing at their promises. for you to blame REPUBLICANS is stupid. you ban gun and criminals will still have them you idiot. yeah, mr b/x... connecticut is a very LIBERAL gun free zone, and guess what happened you dumbass?? got it? you ban ALL guns?? you think the only ppl that will have the guns will be the criminals? yep!i will arm myself, and i DO .. the time i wind up in a safeway, wal mart or whatever and i throw my own life and my gun rights (because i will) in front of some coward and his weapon and save your family while the fucking police are at Denny's eating it up and 5 minutes too late.. I am the Person you want having the gun, and there are many like me. when the enemy has the guns and my 45 acp is taken away by some fucking anti gun liberal.. your family dies while i am throwing bananas and dying to save your dumb ass..fuck you,and i hope a gun toting responsible person like myself will save your ass one day

AND if i survive the the encounter where my gun saved your ass while the "law enforcement" was out partaking of some colorado bacon omelets cuz they CANT be everywhere at once and since criminals generally don't get their firearms legally... btw, and you bitch about my gun i'll kick you in the teeth. make sure to outlaw everyone's feet after that. a knee jerk reaction is one thing, but an intelligent reaction is something you obviously haven't thought of...

What's the old saying? Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them. Guns are merely a tool, it's the user of the tools that are at fault in all of the tragedies you reference, not the tools themselves.

I'm not trying to make a safe utopia by banning guns and I'm not so crazy as to think banning guns will create a safe utopia. We're a long way from utopia in my opinion. But I'd rather have our fucked up world and culture with less guns...and I think we'd all be better off that way.

@ Bryguy:

You seem to have a lot of anger and frustration regarding my blog post. I'm not sure why I touched such a nerve with you...am I insulting you or your family or your lifestyle by saying we'd be better off without the gun culture we have? How many people gave you saved over the years by carrying your ACP? How many people are saved annually by law-abiding, gun-toting citizens like yourself? As many as the number of innocents killed annually by guns in this country?

A gun IS a tool, folks. A tool designed to kill. I'm not interested in people owning that kind of tool...sorry.

JB, are you honsetly saying I had no right in having the tool that allowed me to disarm the moron holding a knife to my brother's throat? No right to have the tool that allowed me to defend my sleeping wife and infant children? Had no right to the tool to defend myslef agsint three men willing to commit assaulit with dangerous weapons within sight of a police station? JB do you honestly believe sane and responsible law abiding folk have no right to an effective tool to defend themselves?

I think it's important to remember that having a gun doesn't guarantee that you're going to stop some bad guy when he freaks out and tries to go on a killing spree. Just because you have a gun doesn't make you Dirty Harry. A bad guy that sees you with a gun will probably try to shoot even more bullets frantically. I read a lot of comments here and elsewhere that claim an armed citizenry guarantees protection, where it could just as likely mean more guns going off, more firefights, more innocent bystanders getting hit, etc. More guns does not automatically equal more security. Again, let's work on the weapon between our ears.

Perhaps you're right and there are statistics to support what you say, Dave, but I still think that focusing on being pro or anti-gun, or a combo of both, is not enough. We need to address how our society handles mental health, alienation, glorification of guns as power, and other potential sources of gun-based violence.

how many of those numbers are suicides? what about those movies that shove guns down our collective throats and say they are cool (i noticed you had nothing to say about that earlier mr bx). NRA has never knocked on my door and given me a gun, you jackasses. you can go door to door and collect all the guns purchased on record. guess what? you take them away from the LEGAL people that are authorised to have these firearms. And NO, mr bx... i have NOT saved anyone with my firearm, but when the time comes do you want me having one to take out a sicko, or do we all die? that's your choice, mr gunsafe liberal.the criminals will still have their guns. the cops and military with their declining budget can't be everywhere at once. one day you'll learn the hard way if you have your way. will i be there to tell you "i told you so"? probably not.. i'll be dead trying to save your hippy ass by throwing rocks..

I will attempt to address some of your points without using emotionally charged language some of my fellow citizens have.

Guns kill people.Yes, they do. That is the purpose of a gun. To kill. The end the life of a living creature abruptly and violently.

HOWEVER, restricting guns will not fix the problem, even if appears to have done so in the UK. Our two nations have different cultures. Firearms are a part of ours.Regardless of that, mental and behavioral health care being more readily available and ACCEPTABLE will probably do more to curb death by violence in the US that further restricting the rights to bear arm as guaranteed in the Constitution.

Which I will address now. Your response to that with "Carry a sword" shows you are messing the intent of the 2nd Amendment. By referring to a "well regulated militia" it is stating military arms, of which a sword is not. Am I saying that a sword should not fall under the protection of the 2nd? No, it should, but to claim that allowing citizens to only own archaic weapons, in a culture that no longer uses them on a frequent basis in the context of defending oneself, does not follow through with the intent of allowing citizens to defend themselves, and their fellow citizens, especially if need be against military or paramilitary enemies, which could include the federal government, as unlikely and wack job as it seems to contemplate it.

Hopefully I addressed the issue of gun ownership enough from the standpoint of the constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

I will now do my best, as someone who do not hunt, address this issue in the context of a hunter.

First, are you suggesting that no one be allowed to hunt with firearms? Or are you suggesting that no one be allowed to hunt period?Are you suggesting that hunters only be allowed to muzzle loading firearms to hunt with? Or even just bolt, pump or lever action firearms? Or revolvers?The rate of fire someone can achieve with anything other than a muzzle loader is still impressive enough to kill a large number of people in a short period of time, potentially at a range great enough to negate any handicap of using low capacity magazines.

You also seem to be confused on the type of weapons the shooters have been using. The type of pistol commonaly called an "automatic" or "auto" is not an automatic firearm. It is a semiautomatic recoil powered firearm, frequently of the double action type, which has no bearing on it's rate of fire. As a semiautomatic firearm, the trigger needs to be squeezed or pulled every time a round fired. This also applies to the majority, I believe all, of assault style rifles available to the public. A great majority of hunting rifles are also semiautomatic rifles.

Guns may be facilitating these horrible assaults on innocent people, but there is much more going on than the availability of firearms in the US.

I know this is probably do very little to persuade you otherwise, but I felt that someone that wasn't overly emotional and highly insulting share a little bit on the other side.

It is certainly an emotional topic for everyone, for multiple reasons. Just to clarify a couple points: my “carry a sword” comment was a bit of a flippant remark; I’m against people killing each with swords (in the real world 21st century) as much I am against guns. However, I do admire the sword ethic in Marion Zimmer Bradley’s (fictional) “Darkover” novels…the idea that a person should not be allowed a weapon that gives the ability to deal death without facing it themselves (thus precluding the carrying of firearms). But, of course, that’s just fiction.

Second clarification: I am aware of the difference between a weapon capable of full automatic fire and a semi-automatic pistol. If my post was blurry in distinction, it is due more to me trying to get across a different point than a debate of what firearms should actually be prohibited based on “deadliness.” Many semi-automatic weapons can be fired quite quickly, even though they are not capable of automatic fire. And in confined quarters (like a classroom) against civilian (non-armored) targets, a semi-automatic weapon can be just as effective at killing (if not more so) than, say, a .50 caliber Browning machine gun. Which, to me, makes it just as unacceptable a weapon for private ownership.

As for hunting, I’ve known people who “hunt bear” with magnum handguns…but then I also know people who won’t hunt deer with anything more than a compound bow, finding firearms “un-sporting.” Personally, I don’t hunt, but it would seem to me that a rifle capable of full automatic fire is an unnecessary “extravagance” at best. I would fear a muzzle-loader (or bolt-action rifle for that matter) much less than a handgun. Yes, a bolt-action has more “killing power” and is plenty murderous in the hands of a crazy mother-fucker with a bit of marksmanship. But the fucking assholes I’m talking about in my blog post are not hunters or marksmen, but disturbed individuals with easy access to portable, readily concealable, easy-to-use weapons.

@ Gaelic:

I disagree with your assessment. Yes, there have been firearms in this country since before we became a country, but the weapons that have become available in the last couple decades are quite different. The guns aren’t the only problem, but they ARE a problem.

I don't understand what the USA people must defend against. You never had true terrorism, for a starter, like in Italy or UK, say. Just look at, e.g., UK. Very strict gun laws also mean that criminals will find it more difficult to have them. In Italy, all the Mafia-like criminal organizations do LESS harm in terms of weapon killing than the civilians in USA. This is just absolutely crazy. Sure, mental health IS a problem; but you don't want to allow mad people easy access to weapons; which is EXACTLY what has happened of late.

Do law-abiding citizens (like myself and, presumably, those folks reading my blog) have the right to defend themselves? Of course. Hell, I feel we have a human right AND responsibility to defend ourselves AND our fellow humans against people who would do terrible things to us or to those around us.

But a right to an “effective tool?” Well, first off, what might be considered an effective tool is definitely up for debate. There are people trained to kill with knives or their bare hands, and there are people so inept that they’d be more a danger to themselves than an opponent, even armed with a gun.

I guess in the end I have to say NO. In my opinion, you do not have the right to carry a weapon designed for (and easily capable of) killing another human being. If that’s what you feel is the only effective tool for protecting yourself and your loved ones and your neighbors, then…well, I find it very sad and pitiable. Maybe you live in a terrible neighborhood, or maybe I live in a really good one, or maybe I am extremely deluded and naïve and you are the one with the REAL handle on what life’s all about.

Your story about your brother sounds awfully traumatic. A few years ago, my friend and I left a comedy club in downtown Seattle, and being late at night and not owning cars at the time, we were walking back to our respective residences on First Hill. Unfortunately, I decided to stay and have “one more drink” and not accompany my friend. He headed home on foot, solo.

Walking through a not-so-nice part of town my friend chanced upon a mugging (or worse)…a man had grabbed a woman and pulled her into a dark doorway. My friend being an upright sort (though not necessarily “heroic” in temperament) felt he had no recourse but to investigate what was going on (this was back in the day before cell phones) and approached the situation, saying something like, “hey, what’s going on?” and/or “let that woman go!” It was only upon approaching the darkened doorway that he realized the assailant had a large knife. Without saying a word, the mugger attacked my friend, lunging at him with the knife.

Now, my friend’s not a big guy…maybe six feet, rail-thin back in those days, a glasses-wearing swimmer. However, for about 2-3 years he’d been taking aikido classes at Seattle Aikikai. When the attacker tried to stab my friend, he grabbed the man’s arm and broke it…without even thinking about it. Literally: he told me later he hadn’t even meant to do anything but protect himself, but his block-lock-and-twist all happened so fast he didn’t even know what would happen. The lady got away unharmed, my buddy made it home later, and the attacker…well, I don’t know what happened to him, but he certainly reaped some pain and suffering for his actions.

But my buddy was terribly traumatized by the event. He’d never hurt anyone before, never been attacked with a weapon before, and felt both shock and a degree of shame over what happened. He stopped taking aikido classes after that and to this day confines his exercise to swimming. He helped someone in need…but it’s entirely possible that if I’D been with him, instead of drinking back at the bar, he might never have been attacked. Confronted by TWO individuals (instead of just one), the mugger might have simply fled the scene. His aikido move was terribly “effective” but did it result in the best resolution of the event? I don’t think my friend would say so. For quite a while afterwards he didn’t even want to talk about the incident (as far as I know, he still doesn’t).

I can't believe you think the saftey of families should hinge on who can win a brawl. I've fought competively and as a yahoo as a youth, I am a large man and I have won fights by hitting someone withy someone else and leaving my family exposed to someone who can beat me by savagery, skill, or luck is not something I want to contemplate.

When its your family at risk would you want the results decided by a "fair" fight?

I guess my point is this (and I think I said something like this already, but I’ll repeat it): I know there are bad people in the world. Whether we have a proliferation of guns or not, bad things will continue to happen. Having guns available doesn’t make folks SAFER. Most folks don’t want to hurt others, with or without a gun. The availability and accessibility of guns just provides increased opportunity for those assholes out there who don’t have the same scruples as “most folks.” Personally, I’d rather NOT give them that increased opportunity.

Not because I think that they’ll be less crazy or less violent or because I don’t understand we need to look at the underlying reasons that drive people to do insane shit. But because it will limit the damage they can do to themselves and others. I think it would be better for our society in general if there were less bodies for the police to pick up.

That's a great feel-good soundbite, but reality is otherwise. Look at the stats from nations like the UK that have disarmed their citizens, and you'll see the rates for most crimes have gone up. Look at stats from U.S., and you'll see that concealed carry laws are passed, crime rates drop. While you may not LIKE to think so, it is what it is.

I disagree with your assessment. Yes, there have been firearms in this country since before we became a country, but the weapons that have become available in the last couple decades are quite different. The guns aren’t the only problem, but they ARE a problem.

Bull. We've had these same kind of weapons (automatic, semi-auto) available since the 1950s.

THE ONLY problem is that our society is decaying morally. Hollywood and the media depicts murder and mass murder more frequently and people accept it more. People have become desensitized to killing.

We have never been able to outlaw alcohol or drugs - people still find a way to use them. Do you think banning guns will be any different? If bad people want them, they will find a way to get them.

By the way this murderer in Conn. didn't even use an assault weapon to do his killing.

I look at a country like Japan which, despite it's martial history, has perhaps the most prohibitive gun laws on record. For example, private citizens aren't allowed to own handguns (i.e. pistols). Despite only being 2.3 times the size of Japan, the gun homicide rate in the USA is 200 times the rate of Japan. And that's just gun HOMICIDES, not deaths by suicide or accidental discharge.

However, I could only find comparative numbers from 2006; the actual rates have changed between our two countries. The CDC reports the number gun homicides in 2009 was 11,493 (68.4% of all homicides in the USA). Japan had less than a dozen in 2008.

RE CCW laws, I've found contradictory statistics on both sides. But proliferation of gun ownership doesn't appear to offer a "solution" to gun violence.

Look, folks: if you're a gun owner/lover we're probably not going to come to an agreement on this because you have invested time and money in your arsenals and (hopefully) training and you've come to your opinions and/or ideologies over years of careful thought. I recognize that trying to sway your opinion on the matter is pretty fucking futile. But I'd challenge any of you to find a solution to limiting gun violence that doesn't involve limiting guns. If keeping a gun handy to blow away a potential "perp" helps you sleep at night, that's your right under our current laws...but it sure seems to me like our current system isn't doing enough to protect our citizens.

@GaelicVigil: yes, it was an AR-15 ASSAULT rifle: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57559416/assault-rifle-used-during-sandy-hook-massacre/

If we can't agree on gun bans, can we at least discuss the potential for some sort of control on how many guns one person can own, and/or the amount of ammo? Does any one person need to own, say, a dozen guns and thousands of rounds of ammo? Can't we find a compromise? But hey, if you're dealing with people worried that they need an arsenal because they think we will need to rebel against the government, or that we're heading for apocalypse, then I guess there's no reasoning with those perspectives, eh?

Gun laws become tougher each year, TSA gropes us when we get on planes, our schools, sporting events, and government locations become locked down more and more...and what is it getting us exactly? More and more mass murders. Proof enough it isn't working.

We need to realize that the price of freedom is a few people who will misuse it sometimes. THAT'S WHAT OUR FOUNDERS DIED FOR.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. -Benjamin Franklin

2 SAMUEL 12 .. . . 17 David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and spent the nights lying in sackcloth[b] on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them. . . . . . .18 On the seventh day the child died. David’s attendants were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they thought, “While the child was still living, he wouldn’t listen to us when we spoke to him. How can we now tell him the child is dead? He may do something desperate.” . . . . . 19 David noticed that his attendants were whispering among themselves, and he realized the child was dead. “Is the child dead?” he asked. . . . . “Yes,” they replied, “he is dead.” ….20 Then David got up from the ground. After he had washed, put on lotions and changed his clothes, he went into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he went to his own house, and at his request they served him food, and he ate. . .. . 21 His attendants asked him, “Why are you acting this way? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept, but now that the child is dead, you get up and eat!” ….22 He answered, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, ‘Who knows? The LORD may be gracious to me and let the child live.’ 23 But now that he is dead, why should I go on fasting? Can I bring him back again? I WILL GO TO HIM, BUT HE WILL NOT RETURN TO ME.”

@GaelicVigil: what is your evidence that gun laws are getting tougher? Give us statistics, a newspaper article, an official report about this "fact." And I love how there's never any compromise in this country. Isn't it a sign of wisdom to be self-reflective, ponder one's position and think deeply, and see things from another's perspective? Why does everything have to be all or nothing today? Do you need to have 30-round clips and limitless ammo to feel safe? Are you planning for a revolution, or trying to protect yourself on the street/in your home? You want no limits, but doesn't that come with its own dangers, just like total limitation of guns might carry?

Every single one of the recent mass shootings have happened in places with "Gun Free Zone" signs plastered on them. These freaks know exactly where to go now to mow down innocent people.

Chicago, DC and New York have the toughest gun laws in the country, but by far the highest percentage of death by guns in the nation. Switzerland and Israel, on the other hand, have some of the most lax gun laws in the world and they also have one of the lowest crime rates. Look it up.

Walk into an amusement park or many of the schools today and you'll see there are far more security measures than there used to be just 10 to 15 years ago.

In light of all this, here's another inconvenient fact for you, of the 11 deadliest shootings in the US, six have happened from 2007 onward. Again, look it up.

I know all of you sheep eat up every word that comes off your liberal news channels, but try doing some independent thinking for a change. Maybe you'll learn something.

I'll tell you why I should be able to have an assault weapon in my home. Because I believe in freedom. Freedom to do whatever the hell I want as long as I'm not harming someone else. How about we take away your car? Those kill way more people than guns do each year. What about pot or cigarettes? People die from lung cancer nearly double the rate of gun deaths in this country each year. Not so fun to take away freedom when it's your own is it?

@GaelicVigil: it's a shame if you won’t try to see the fine degrees of shading in this complex discussion. That's one of the problems with this country, and probably a big reason why people go nuts and shoot each other. We've reached a place where it's not enough to disagree with someone. You have to see them as an enemy. You have to destroy them, if not physically then emotionally. And we avoid, at all costs, any attempt at understanding where the other person is coming from.

I'm not speaking for JB here, I'm an individual with different opinions than JB. I know he has a hard-line opposition to guns. I don’t share the same opinion. I can see where you’re both coming from.

But hey, bad on me for trying to strike a middle ground between the sides here, trying to find the holes in both sides of the argument. Silly me. Far be it for someone to suggest that there's the possibility of level-headedness. Yes, it would be a horrible, horrible fate to find a compromise.

No, let's all just keep siding with our pathetic “gangs:” republicans, democrats, liberals, pro gun, anti gun, pro life, pro choice, on and on and on. All these groups might as well have different hand signs and colored bandanas. We reduce those who think differently than us to stereotypes, and see abstract concepts before we see the people beneath.

It’s so much easier to kill something that you no longer see as a unique individual.So we march on and on, filling ourselves with fear for each other. With disdain for each other. That’s the ammo we’re loading into our most dangerous weapons: our minds.

By the way, I'm not a liberal. I'm me, a thinking person, with liberal and conservative thoughts in my head, and all the shades of thought in between. You know, because I'm not a robot. I'm sure you have that capacity as well, but just aren't exercising that capability. I understand, though, that you are probably angry in response to JB's post, but anger can only sustain you for so long, right?

I have looked at it from both sides, and I've learned that gun control doesn't work. You sound like you are compromising for the sake of compromise.

Maybe that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling deep inside, but if you aren't willing to stand for something concrete, you're letting someone else make the decisions for you who ARE willing to take a strong stand.

GaelicVigil: the words "gun control" have become so meaningless now. What about "gun common sense"? Maybe that's a better way to say it. I understand the concept of having freedom means that sometimes people abuse freedom. I'm willing to take that risk as much as you are. But I'm not talking about limiting freedom. I'm talking about exploring the thought that perhaps people don't need endless piles of gigantic capacity clips and oceans of ammo. Perhaps limiting access in that way might help. how many bullets do you need to protect yourself? how often do you expect to be home-invaded? I don't know if my thoughts will work, but I'm putting the ideas out there.

so, you think compromise means someone is not being "concrete" enough. That illustrates my point: compromise is seen as wishy washy, warm and fuzzy, in this country instead of mature and humble and reasonable. I guess you'd be more comfortable talking to/arguing with a rabidly anti-gun person, rather than talk to someone who is trying to reach out to strike a balance. Makes no effing sense at all.

Well, see, thats the thing. I couldn't figure out a path to a solution without you, and others with possible ideas. That's the thing we are missing in all this debate. If the American people can come to the table with open minds, sorry if that sounds "mushy" or high minded. It shouldn't just be one side struggling for a solution while the other sits back and waits. This isn't a trial where the burden of "proof" is on one side. Again, why is it a negative to want to work together to solve problems? Maybe if all come to the gun debate ready to talk about it openly, we can make some difference. If that makes me naive, I don't want to be any different.

As for why number of rounds matters, there's just higher probability of hitting targets the more rounds are fired. And what facilitates more rounds fired? High capacity magazines. The asshole in CT reportedly fired around 100 shots. If there's a chance smaller magazines might even spare one life, it's worth it. It's something to explore. I may be wrong but it's at least a starting point. This won't stop gun violence but might make things harder for nutjobs, among other possibilities. What if ammo took longer to get, etc. I'm not an expert but all I ask for is consideration. Let's talk solutions, not argue about who likes freedom more or some other pointless posturing.